Skip to main content

Dehydron as a Marker for Molecular Evolution: Lessons for the Drug Designer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Physics at the Biomolecular Interface

Part of the book series: Soft and Biological Matter ((SOBIMA))

  • 791 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the significance of protein dehydron patterns as markers for molecular evolution. Since, as described in Chap. 4, dehydrons may be targeted by wrapping ligands that may eventually become therapeutic drugs, the evolutionary insights hereby obtained naturally have ramifications for the drug designer. Such ramifications will be exhaustively investigated in the remaining chapters of the book. Proteins with common ancestry (homologs) typically share a common fold, but this structural similarity introduces major problems for molecular targeted therapy since it may lead to hazardous off-target effects and prevent the control of specificity. As shown in this chapter, while the topology of the native fold is highly similar across homologs, the wrapping patterns tend to be different, enabling the wrapping drug to funnel its impact solely on clinically relevant targets. The evolutionary root of the differences in dehydron pattern across homologous proteins is dissected in this chapter both across species and within the human species. As first hinted in this chapter and further developed in the subsequent ones, wrapping variations across homologs can be exploited in drug design to considerable advantage as we aim at engineering target-specific and species-specific therapeutic agents and build meaningful animal models for disease and malignancy. In establishing the evolutionary forces that promote differences in the dehydron patterns across orthologous proteins, we discovered that random genetic drift plays an operational role in promoting dehydron enrichment. This type of structural degradation enhances the propensity for protein interactivity and becomes more pronounced in species with low population, such as humans, where the mildly deleterious mutations typically resulting from random drift have a higher probability of getting fixed in the population. The fitness consequences of this evolutionary strategy adopted by nature are assessed for humans, and reveal the high exposure of the human species to fitness catastrophes resulting from aberrant protein aggregation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Fernández A, Scott R, Berry RS. The nonconserved wrapping of conserved folds reveals a trend towards increasing connectivity in proteomic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:2823–7.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fernández A, Berry RS. Molecular dimension explored in evolution to promote proteomic complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:13460–5.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lynch M, Conery JS. The origins of genome complexity. Science. 2003;302:1401–4.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kondrashov FA, Koonin EV. A common framework for understanding the origin of genetic dominance and evolutionary fates of gene duplications. Trends Genet. 2004;20:287–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liang H, Rogale-Plazonic K, Chen J, Li WH, Fernández A. Protein under-wrapping causes dosage sensitivity and decreases gene duplicability. PLoS Genet. 2008;4:e11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Papp B, Pal C, Hurst LD. Dosage sensitivity and the evolution of gene families in yeast. Nature. 2003;424:194–7.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fernández A, Scheraga H. Insufficiently dehydrated hydrogen bonds as determinants for protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:113–8.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartel D. MicroRNAs: target recognition and regulatory functions. Cell. 2009;136:215–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fernández A, Chen J. Human capacitance to dosage imbalance: coping with inefficient selection. Genome Res. 2009;19(12):2185–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fernández A. Keeping dry and crossing membranes. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:1081–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Veitia RA. Exploring the etiology of haploinsufficiency. Bioessays. 2002;24:175–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Veitia RA. Gene dosage balance: deletions, duplications and dominance. Trends Genet. 2004;21:33–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Su AI, Wiltshire T, Batalov S, et al. A gene atlas of the mouse and human protein-encoding transcriptomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:6062–7.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Birney E, Andrews D, Caccamo M, et al. Ensembl 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D556–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang Z, Nielsen R. Estimating synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution rates under realistic evolutionary models. Mol Biol Evol. 2000;17:32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Friedman RC, Farth KK, Burge CB, Bartel DP. Most mammalian mRNAs are conserved targets of microRNAs. Genome Res. 2009;19:92–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lewis B, Burge C, Bartel D. Conserved seed pairing, often flanked by adenosines, indicates that thousands of human genes are microRNA targets. Cell. 2005;120:15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grimson A, Farth KK, Johnston WK, et al. MicroRNA target specificity in mammals: determinants beyond seed pairing. Mol Cell. 2007;27:91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Aloy P, Ceulemans H, Stark A, Russell RB. The relationship between sequence and interaction divergence in proteins. J Mol Biol. 2003;332:989–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gu Z, Nicolae D, Lu HH, Li W-H. Rapid divergence in expression between duplicate genes inferred from microarray data. Trends Genet. 2002;18:609–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen F, Li W-H. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet. 2001;68:444–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gao L, Innan H. Very low gene duplication rate in the yeast genome. Science. 2004;306:1367–70.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fernández A, Lynch M. Nonadaptive origins of interactome complexity. Nature. 2011;474:502–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ball P. The Achilles’ heel of biological complexity. Nature. 2011;474:502–5. doi:10.1038/news.2011.294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ball P. Why are you so complex? Complicated protein interactions evolved to stave off mutations. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/complicated-protein-interactions-evolved-to-stave-off-mutations/. Accessed 18 May 2011.

  26. Surmacz E, Bartucci M. Role of estrogen receptor alpha in modulating IGF-I receptor signaling and function in breast cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2005;23:385–94.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kimura M. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Arnold FH, Meyerowitz JT. News and views: evolving with purpose. Nature. 2014;509:166–7.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kirk D. Volvox: the molecular genetic origins of multicellularity and cellular differentiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Prochnik SE, Umen J, Nedelcu AM, Hallmann A, Miller SM, et al. Genomic analysis of organismal complexity in the multicellular gree alga Volvox carteri. Science. 2010;329:223–8.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kirk D. A twelve-step program for evolving multicellularity and a division of labor. Bioessays. 2005;27:299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Miller SM, Kirk DL. GlsA, a Volvox gene required for asymmetric division and germ cell specification, encodes a chaperone-like protein. Development. 1999;126:649–58.

    Google Scholar 

  33. King N. The unicellular ancestry of animal development. Dev Cell. 2004;7:313–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Herron MD, Jeremiah D, Hackett JD, Aylward FO, Michod RE. Triassic origin and early radiation of multicellular volvocine algae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:3254–8.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cheng Q, Fowler R, Tam LW, Edwards L, Miller SM. The role of GlsA in the evolution of asymmetric cell division in the green alga Volvox carteri. Dev Genes Evol. 2003;213:328–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kirk DL, Nishii I. Volvox carteri as a model for studying the genetic and cytological control of morphogenesis. Dev Growth Differ. 2001;43:621–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Herron MD, Michod RE. Evolution of complexity in the volvocine algae: transitions in individuality through Darwin’s eye. Evolution. 2008;62:436–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nedelcu AM. Environmentally induced responses co-opted for reproductive altruism. Biol Lett. 2009;5:805–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ueki N, Nishii I. Idaten is a new cold-inducible transposon of Volvox carteri that can be used for tagging developmentally important genes. Genetics. 2008;180:1343–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pietrosemoli N, Crespo A, Fernández A. Dehydration propensity of order-disorder intermediate regions in soluble proteins. J Proteome Res. 2007;6:3519–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fernández A, Berry RS. Golden rule for buttressing vulnerable soluble proteins. J Proteome Res. 2010;9:2643–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fernández, A. (2016). Dehydron as a Marker for Molecular Evolution: Lessons for the Drug Designer. In: Physics at the Biomolecular Interface. Soft and Biological Matter. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30852-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics